What is Anarchism

DadaKopf

Yeah, fair enough.

oscarBravo

Akrasia wrote:

That's a pretty cynical view of why people become doctors in the first place. It is a very rewarding job just because you get to save people's lives

I don't doubt that there are those who would do a doctor's job for average industrial wage, but I suspect they're in the minority. As I've already said, I don't claim that doctors are only motivated by money, but it's naive to assume that it doesn't form a susbtantial part of the motivation.

Akrasia wrote:

Most people want more out of life than just the means to survive. Self actuatalisation is an important psychological need that is hard to find in a boring low wage, low skill job.

That's another reason I'm working as hard as I am now: I'm building something that is delivering a social benefit as well as an income for me.

But I'm also building to a point where I hope to be able to do things that are just a little out of my reach at the moment. I'd like to get back into flying lessons and earn a PPL - not for any productive reason, but because of the sheer joy of flying. I'd like to own a sailing yacht, for similar reasons.

How do such frivolities fit into an anarchist society?

Sand

Anarcho - Capitlaism is not on oxymoron. What would be an orxymoron is some authorithy claiming anarcho-capitalism is not allowed. If a community organise themselves on anarcho-capitalist grounds which authority will overule them? Especially as many claim government regulation is required to restrain naked capitalism.

Essentially though despite the hype, and my own sympathy for small government, anarchic societies will fall victim to the same inescapble realities of human nature that communism - and Akraisias version of anarchy is just communism less the KGB, for now - fell victim too. Anarchism demands fanatical political activism and/or fanatical devotion to blind legalism. Without either, anarchism will devolve to populism, personsified in some charismatic leader.

I.E dictatorship. Ask the Romans.

mountainyman

DadaKopf wrote:

.
If, instead, you're implying that so-called primitive, paternalist, authoritarian, warlike 'tribes' is how Africa was before colonialism

That's precisely the opposite of what she was saying. You are clearly less interested in exchaninging information than you are in pointless egoising and demonstrations of what you feel (inacurately) to be hidden knowledge.

DadaKopf wrote:

.
there is ample evidence to show that it was colonialism which led to this - i.e. the violent incorporation of the continent and its peoples into industrial capitalism. This image of 'tribal violence' we see in the media (vastly exaggerates) is therefore not a necessary outcome of different forms of social organisation.

Is it your contention that prior to the development of 'Industrial Capitalism' there was no violence in africa.
Is it your contention that prior to the development of 'Industrial Capitalism' well organised states in West Africa (to leave Ethiopia out of it) practised a form of statecraft that was not based on domination and exploitation?
How did the Abyssinian state fund the Christaina Moslem wars?

MM

mountainyman

oscarBravo wrote:

I don't doubt that there are those who would do a doctor's job for average industrial wage, but I suspect they're in the minority.

They might not be the same people who are currently doctors but it is one profession that we will always need and will never have trouble filling.

I am more concerned about accountants, how would one monitor inputs and outputs in an Anarchist society, If my commune builds a ship how would we know that the ship was useful.

Capitalism tolerates alot of useless economic activity (it is clearly a wasteful system- the belief is that the dynamism of capitalism compensates for this) the command economies avoided this duplication of activity but were not dynmaic.

Would anarchism lead to duplication of effort and a lack of economic activity, to wasteful stagnation?

How would one avoid waste?

oscarBravo wrote:

I'd like to get back into flying lessons and earn a PPL - not for any productive reason, but because of the sheer joy of flying. I'd like to own a sailing yacht, for similar reasons.

How do such frivolities fit into an anarchist society?

No one would own a Yacht or a plane but you could sail them and fly them every so often. You wouldn't necessarily get to do it that often.
People wouldn't live as well as the parasitic expoliter class currently does.

MM

Akrasia

oscarBravo wrote:

How do such frivolities fit into an anarchist society?

Anarchists have no objection to frivolous activity as long as they are open to everyone. You wouldn't be able to buy a personal yacht, but I'm sure there are loads of people out there who would be willing to help you to acquire use and maintain one

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

Anarcho - Capitlaism is not on oxymoron.

Yes it is. Anarchism is against capitalism. You can call laissez faire capitalism whatever you like, but that doesn't make it a form of anarchism.

What would be an orxymoron is some authorithy claiming anarcho-capitalism is not allowed. If a community organise themselves on anarcho-capitalist grounds which authority will overule them? Especially as many claim government regulation is required to restrain naked capitalism.

Anarchists wouldn't stop people from trying to set up their own little 'libertarian' community somewhere (those poor people) as long as they didn't try to force others to comply with their rules. Anarchists would refuse to accept their ownership of whatever land they would lay claim to, so there would doubtlessly be conflict if they were in close proximity with each other.

Essentially though despite the hype, and my own sympathy for small government, anarchic societies will fall victim to the same inescapble realities of human nature that communism - and Akraisias version of anarchy is just communism less the KGB, for now - fell victim too.

What exactly are those 'inescapable realities of human nature'? The entire advertising and marketing industry is built on the very idea that human behaviour is highly suggestable and can operate within a wide range of parameters if trained and influenced in the right way. Individualism and mass greed is a 20th century invention.
The severe problems with communism can all be traced back to the authoritarian, centralised government. How can you say that anarchism would repeat those problems when we reject the entire concept of top down centralised decision making?

Anarchism demands fanatical political activism and/or fanatical devotion to blind legalism.

No, anarchism requires an educated population who are conditioned to think for themselves and question authority. It is not 'Human nature' to respect authority, it takes years of indoctrination from birth and the threats of punishment from the state if the authority is disobeyed. It is an illusion though. Most people already disregard laws that they don't agree with (how many people have been to a lock in in a pub after official closing time? How many people jay walk? How many people have ever used an illegal substance?)

You are probably going to say next that most people are too stupid to understand complex political life?

I.E dictatorship. Ask the Romans.

When were the Romans ever anarchists?

mountainyman

Communism without the KGB is a big change.

Akrasia without a command economy how do you guard against duplication of effort?

What about tea, tea pickers earn 7cents an hour. Lets say that is a ppp of 70 cents an hour, they are an exploited group.

Where would I get tea.
Would there be cars?

How would large projects be adminstered.
How would you prevent people in essential services from running those services in a manner that only suites themeselves.
How would you stop th tram drivers working only 10 AM to 2 PM for example.

MM

DadaKopf

Akrasia without a command economy how do you guard against duplication of effort?

Presumably through communication and cooperation.

What about tea, tea pickers earn 7cents an hour. Lets say that is a ppp of 70 cents an hour, they are an exploited group.

Where would I get tea.
Would there be cars?

I'm not sure I get your point here.

I actually share your concerns, and I haven't a problem with social organisation. What I have a problem with is exploitation and abuses of power, which are part and parcel of the system we have today. So, what are the alternatives?

If you were living in 17th century France, would you be saying that the divine right of kings is now and ever shall be? Or do you accept that things can and do actually change?

What if you were that tea-picker? It reminds me of a story I heard: this fella got a foreign body stuck in his eye, it was large and he couldn't see. His friend said, "Sure don't worry about it, I'm sure it'll be grand". The guy with something in his eye roared back, "Yeah? That's fine for you, but it's my eye!"

mountainyman

The fact is that we in the west are beneficiaries of a system which pays the tea picker 7cents an hour. In a sense we all form part of a massive boss class compared to the rest of the world. In a Christian sense we are all the rich who won't get into heaven.
EDIT:
Clearly the treatment of the tea pickers is disgraceful but it is how we get tea.

DadaKopf: To say communication and cooperation is all very well but it is a bit of handwave isn't it?
If you have a 'Central Coordinating Commitee' don't you have an incipient government?

How would one track inputs and outputs?

Lets say that the Congolese Bauxite Miners Union sends bauxite down to the International Aluminum Smelter Workers Union plant in Soyo to be part refined and then part of that gets sent to germany to be turned into airplane wings at the German Federation of Airplane Manufactrurers plant in Kiel. In exchange the African Railway Workers Union is to get 9 new locomotives from the French Federation of Locomotive Manufactory Workers.

How will the Africans know that the trains will be of serviceable quality, how will the Angolans and Congoles know they will get some benefit from the deal and who tracks the inputs and outputs in this deal?
EDIT: How do the French know they will get some value for their trains?

If you have professional deal brokers/structurers hw do you stop them turning themselves into Compradors?



MM

Fanny Cradock

Akrasia wrote:

The entire advertising and marketing industry is built on the very idea that human behaviour is highly suggestable and can operate within a wide range of parameters if trained and influenced in the right way.

It may well be, but all advertising is built around, and focused upon, the iron clad staples of human desire: sex; violence; love; adoration; comfort; safety etc. (I'm sure Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs could be inserted here), which in turn dictate our very nature. Whatever the product, our fundamental desires are used against us to try and make that new "thing" (which we really don't need) appear wholly necessary.


::Edit::

My point above is that our essential nature remains the same whatever system we find ourselves operating under/ in. The problems we have now would, i believe, be replicated and possibly worsened by such a fexible system.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Out of curiosity, has this ever been tried on a mass scale (I’m talking about a number of communities, each with 1000's of people)? Or is this more of a theory that appears sound?


:::::::::::::::END TRANSMISSION:::::::::::::::::::

mountainyman

Fanny Cradock wrote:

Out of curiosity, has this ever been tried on a mass scale (I’m talking about a number of communities, each with 1000's of people)? Or is this more of a theory that appears sound?

It was tried in northern Spain during the 1930s: high level overview anarchist organisation works better than 1930s Spanish Capitalism. Productivity increased in factories: but the period was short and it was a revolutionary/ war situation.

I am more interested in the medium term, the mundane and humdrum, how would we stop people drifting back to old patterns and relationships.

MM

Akrasia

mountainyman wrote:

The fact is that we in the west are beneficiaries of a system which pays the tea picker 7cents an hour. In a sense we all form part of a massive boss class compared to the rest of the world. In a Christian sense we are all the rich who won't get into heaven.
EDIT:
Clearly the treatment of the tea pickers is disgraceful but it is how we get tea.

If there is no way we can get tea without exploiting foreign workers, then we should do without it. In terms of sustainability, It is not environmentally sustainable to continue transporting our food the whole way across the world. It is much better to produce locally as much as possible. We would probably still trade in things like tea and chocolate, but such trade would be on fair and just terms.

There is no moral argument that supports our 'right' to consume luxury products that are produced using slave labour.
Right wing types argue in terms of our 'right to choose' and completely ignore the responsibility we have towards our fellow man.

DadaKopf: To say communication and cooperation is all very well but it is a bit of handwave isn't it?
If you have a 'Central Coordinating Commitee' don't you have an incipient government?

not if the decisions are made by the people via systems of direct democracy. Committees in anarchist organisations are elected for fixed terms and to carry our specific tasks. An example would be a committee appointed to find a building for a new social center. The committee has this specific task and they carry it out as best they can, when they are ready, they report back their findings to the rest of the organisation, and the organisation as a whole decides whether or not to accept the findings of the committee.
Committees are immediately recallable at any time, and once their task is complete, the committee automatically disbands.

How would one track inputs and outputs?

using a pen and paper probably.

Lets say that the Congolese Bauxite Miners Union sends bauxite down to the International Aluminum Smelter Workers Union plant in Soyo to be part refined and then part of that gets sent to germany to be turned into airplane wings at the German Federation of Airplane Manufactrurers plant in Kiel. In exchange the African Railway Workers Union is to get 9 new locomotives from the French Federation of Locomotive Manufactory Workers.

How will the Africans know that the trains will be of serviceable quality, how will the Angolans and Congoles know they will get some benefit from the deal and who tracks the inputs and outputs in this deal?
EDIT: How do the French know they will get some value for their trains?

If you have professional deal brokers/structurers hw do you stop them turning themselves into Compradors?

The federations of producers would probably operate in much the same way as co-operatives work today. The Mondragon cooperative is a huge conglomerate and remains amongst the best examples of how this can work
(well, it's starting to slide now in order to compete with the race to the bottom effect that globalisation has brought.)

The sovereign body is the 650-member Co-operative Congress, its delegates elected from across the individual co-operatives. The annual general assembly elects to a governing council which has day-to-day management responsibility and appoints senior staff. For each individual business, there is also a workplace council, the elected President of which assists the manager with the running of the business on behalf of the workers

this is their organisational structure http://www.mcc.es/ing/estructura/estructura.html
In an anarchist society, those principles would be carried even further

metrovelvet

Akrasia wrote:

If there is no way we can get tea without exploiting foreign workers, then we should do without it. In terms of sustainability, It is not environmentally sustainable to continue transporting our food the whole way across the world. It is much better to produce locally as much as possible. We would probably still trade in things like tea and chocolate, but such trade would be on fair and just terms.

What about affordable clothing? Would it make more sense to apply economic pressures to those foreign nations who allow their workers to be exploited. For example, simply boycott goods made in [insert nation of exploited workers].

Akrasia wrote:

There is no moral argument that supports our 'right' to consume luxury products that are produced using slave labour.
Right wing types argue in terms of our 'right to choose' and completely ignore the responsibility we have towards our fellow man.

Do you consider tea a luxury item? What about runners? What about chocolate? What about the phone? What about your PC?

Akrasia wrote:

not if the decisions are made by the people via systems of direct democracy. Committees in anarchist organisations are elected for fixed terms and to carry our specific tasks. An example would be a committee appointed to find a building for a new social center. The committee has this specific task and they carry it out as best they can, when they are ready, they report back their findings to the rest of the organisation, and the organisation as a whole decides whether or not to accept the findings of the committee.
Committees are immediately recallable at any time, and once their task is complete, the committee automatically disbands.
using a pen and paper probably.

You know this sounds a little freaky, a little bit like Disney's housing estates "Celebration."
http://celebration.nm1.net/

Akrasia wrote:

Individualism and mass greed is a 20th century invention.

Oh because before the 20th century the money was in the hands of the few? What are you talking about? Status is a part of human nature.

Akrasia

metrovelvet wrote:

What about affordable clothing? Would it make more sense to apply economic pressures to those foreign nations who allow their workers to be exploited. For example, simply boycott goods made in [insert nation of exploited workers].

Well, the 'international pressure' that governments may or may not bring can not hope to compete with the pressure that they are under to facilitate exploitation by corporations. Especially when the 'international community' themselves are in bed with those same corporations.

Do you consider tea a luxury item? What about runners? What about chocolate? What about the phone? What about your PC?

Tea is a luxury item when you consider that the people who we get to produce it do not earn enough money to be able to afford to consume it themselves. I think that's a fair measure of what a luxury Item is.

You know this sounds a little freaky, a little bit like Disney's housing estates "Celebration."
http://celebration.nm1.net/

Well, democracy is a freaky process.

Oh because before the 20th century the money was in the hands of the few? What are you talking about? Status is a part of human nature.

money was in the hands of the few before the 20th century. and it still is.

I'm reminded of a saying by Epicurus from about 270 bc

Nothing is enough to someone for whom what is enough is too little

mountainyman

Akrasia wrote:

Tea is a luxury item when you consider that the people who we get to produce it do not earn enough money to be able to afford to consume it themselves. I think that's a fair measure of what a luxury Item is.

No they drink all the tea they want, tea is cheap in India.

I still think that to answer questions about tracking inputs and outputs with the answer paper and pencil (why not a computer- no labour saving devices that seems odd) is too much of a handwave.

People will still have to do boring jobs like track inputs and outputs.

Would large deals like the above have a coordinating committee, like a 'Coordinating Commitee to Arrange the Shipment of 9 Trains to the African Railway Workers Union from the French Federation of Locomotive Manufactory Workers'.

How would you stop the Frenchmena and Angolans on that commitee from robbing the Airplane workers and Bauxite miners blind, even if indivdual wealth was irrelevant wouldn't people still pursue sectional interests?

MM

DadaKopf

I think the answer to your questions goes back to what Akrasia said when I asked him how he thought an anarchist society could actually come about. He said something that made good common sense - its moment may come when environmental degradation reaches such a point that global capitalist society with all its production chains, political systems, consumption patterns and social relations as we know it come crashing down. Mountainyman, without the ability to transport goods across the world in such quantities, with such speed, your problem with anarchism won't be worth worrying about because it'll be quite simply impossible. There won't be any global trade.

What will happen is that political theories, which are themselves a product of their environments, will change because human behaviour will necessarily change.

As Akrasia said, since this looks like its not too far away - that the limits to growth will be reached - he's thinking about a realistic exit strategy.

In these conditions, local democracy may very well work. It certainly works for the Zapatistas in Mexico.

Attractive Nun

It's a widely believed myth that ideologies such as communism and anarchism are good ideas in theory, simply failures in practice. Anarchism is as bad an idea in theory as it is in practice.

All anarchists acknowledge that for a communal society to function in the long-term, there would have to be a major shift in the way people think. Human self-interest would have to disappear or else, obviously, people simply wouldn't bother contributing to society. An absense of authority would have to actually remove crime, or else society could simply descend into chaos. As utterly untested and blatantly unverifiable as most of this theory is, it is not necessarily implausible. The problem with anarchism lies elsewhere.

As somebody mentioned, anarchism is often referred to as libertarian-socialism (sidenote: anarcho-capitalism is not in any way an oxymoron, as somebody else called it) precisely because its entire focus is on liberty, freedom. It needn't be said that any political ideology that strives for freedom can't be all bad, but anarchism is seriously misguided in what it calls freedom. Nobody but the most extreme nihilist will argue for the absolute freedom whereby an individual would be free to harm others arbitrarily, so there must be a philosophical reason why one cannot do this.

Most thinkers refer to this reason as 'responsibility'. We all have individual rights (another method, for the record, by which we could dismiss anarchist theory - all rights can be shown to derive from the right to property, a right which anarchism denies) and a concurrent responsibility to respect the rights of others, which is fair enough. But anarchism argues that, in addition, individuals have a responsibility to work for society as a whole; that if you neglect your responsibilities in this regard, you will be subjected to the anarchists' idea of a punishment (i.e. social ostracization). Acceptance of this latter responsibility, however, necessarily implies a rejection of one's individual rights, since one cannot have the individual right to live as one pleases if one also has the equivalent of a legal responsibility to give his labour to the community. And individual responsibilities cannot exist without individual rights. Thus, anarchist theory is deeply flawed.

Of course, the above is essentially a non-issue, both because a collective society is utterly impractical and inevitably doomed to failure, and because - in any case - such a society would be a detestable place to live anyway. If given the choice between a capitalist society, where I can choose to live and work as I wish - subject to the risks, excitement and hope that define human life - and an anarchist society, where I am boxed into a community, stuck in the strifling mediocrity of absolute equality with no prospect of change, individual betterment or reward, I will choose the former every time.

Akrasia

Attractive Nun wrote:

It's a widely believed myth that ideologies such as communism and anarchism are good ideas in theory, simply failures in practice. Anarchism is as bad an idea in theory as it is in practice.

All anarchists acknowledge that for a communal society to function in the long-term, there would have to be a major shift in the way people think. Human self-interest would have to disappear or else, obviously, people simply wouldn't bother contributing to society.

That is not a logical necessity. It is in people's self interest to contribute to society. The reason we have society at all is because people realise that we're all better off than we are alone. The shift in thinking that is required is an acceptance that solidarity and cooperation leads to mutual benefits for all, and that individualist competitive and adversarial social interaction leads to a worse outcome for everyone. Anarchists acknowledge the causal relationship between poverty/disadvantage and a whole range of social issues. Individualist capitalists seem to think that these problems are just unavoidable.

An absense of authority would have to actually remove crime, or else society could simply descend into chaos. As utterly untested and blatantly unverifiable as most of this theory is, it is not necessarily implausible. The problem with anarchism lies elsewhere.

Anarchists try to tackle the causes of crime, and not just deal with the consequences when society breaks down.

As somebody mentioned, anarchism is often referred to as libertarian-socialism

yeah

(sidenote: anarcho-capitalism is not in any way an oxymoron, as somebody else called it)

yes it is. And I have already explained why. If you want to discuss those reasons, or why you think I'm wrong, feel free

precisely because its entire focus is on liberty, freedom. It needn't be said that any political ideology that strives for freedom can't be all bad, but anarchism is seriously misguided in what it calls freedom. Nobody but the most extreme nihilist will argue for the absolute freedom whereby an individual would be free to harm others arbitrarily, so there must be a philosophical reason why one cannot do this.

Anarchists don't believe that everyone is free to harm others. Anarchists have emphasis on 'freedom from' while 'liberals' emphasise 'freedom to'
Anarchists support freedom from oppression.
Anarchists do not support people's 'right' to oppress others, and that includes physical violence against innocent people.

Most thinkers refer to this reason as 'responsibility'. We all have individual rights (another method, for the record, by which we could dismiss anarchist theory - all rights can be shown to derive from the right to property, a right which anarchism denies)

How exactly does that work?
If all rights are derived from the right to own property, then do people who don't own any property not have any rights? Please explain your logic.

and a concurrent responsibility to respect the rights of others, which is fair enough. But anarchism argues that, in addition, individuals have a responsibility to work for society as a whole; that if you neglect your responsibilities in this regard, you will be subjected to the anarchists' idea of a punishment (i.e. social ostracization). Acceptance of this latter responsibility, however, necessarily implies a rejection of one's individual rights, since one cannot have the individual right to live as one pleases if one also has the equivalent of a legal responsibility to give his labour to the community. And individual responsibilities cannot exist without individual rights. Thus, anarchist theory is deeply flawed.

So you are saying that everyone should have loads of rights, but not have any responsibility? Do people have a right to live as they please in capitalist society? If I want to be a naturalist and never wear any clothes, I would end up in jail fairly fast. If I decided I didn't want to pay any tax, I'd be in jail.
Living in any society with other people is always going to restrict someone's absolute freedom to do whatever they like whenever they like. In an anarchist society, people at least have a say in deciding what the bouindaries are, and if they don't agree with them, they are free to leave. Anarchists do not seek hegemony, imperialist capitalism does.

Of course, the above is essentially a non-issue, both because a collective society is utterly impractical and inevitably doomed to failure

because the human species has always been individualist and capitalist and it's like that everywhere in the world.

and because - in any case - such a society would be a detestable place to live anyway. If given the choice between a capitalist society, where I can choose to live and work as I wish - subject to the risks, excitement and hope that define human life - and an anarchist society, where I am boxed into a community, stuck in the strifling mediocrity of absolute equality with no prospect of change, individual betterment or reward, I will choose the former every time.

Some of the most capitalist societies in the world are the most desperately poor. You are assuming that capitalism equals 21st century middle class Ireland, but in reality, we are in the richest 10% of the worlds population. Most of the worlds population is capitalist, and most of the worlds population is desperately poor, and getting poorer. And capitalism is destroying the planet as a viable habitat for most of the worlds intelligent life forms including Humans. Global temperatures could rise by 10 degrees celsius this century alone as a result of global capitalism, a rise more than enough to destroy 90% of global biodiversity

SkepticOne

Although I think life without the state is possible and I can see its attractions for some, for most people it would be harsh. It would not be a stable situation as powerful groups and individuals would quickly move to fill the vacuum.

Perhaps I'm wrong but I think most people (including anarchists) will agree that simply getting rid of the state would not in itself lead to any sort of socialism. Some sort of ideology is needed to keep peoples brute nature at bay in the absence of a state and its laws.

The question for anarchists is this: can this ideology be maintained in the face of armed groups who do not hold that ideology and for how long?

Anarchists may not believe in chaos and disorder and dog-eat-dog but this is what they will get. Present day anarchism seems to be motivated by a desire for socialism but disilusionment with what happened when people tried to put into practice Marx's theories. Unfortunately, the same forces that made Marxism unfeasible in practice also makes anarchism of the socialist variety unworkable.

mountainyman

So the world will collapse and out of the ashes will come this 'libertarian communism'.

Sounds like crap to me.

MM

Akrasia

mountainyman wrote:

So the world will collapse and out of the ashes will come this 'libertarian communism'.

Sounds like crap to me.

MM

Do you believe that the current system will last forever?

mountainyman

I don't think the current system will last forever, though the Chinese and Indian elites might want their day in the sun.
I don't think that an economic collapse will result in anything other than barbarism, but given that you won't discuss how complex problems might be solved in your imaginary system I don't think you care what happens so long as the current system collapses.

mm

DadaKopf

mountainyman wrote:

I don't think the current system will last forever, though the Chinese and Indian elites might want their day in the sun.
I don't think that an economic collapse will result in anything other than barbarism, but given that you won't discuss how complex problems might be solved in your imaginary system I don't think you care what happens so long as the current system collapses.

mm

What do you find particularly reprihensible about the current system? What would you change? Or is everything just fine and dandy?

Akrasia

mountainyman wrote:

I don't think the current system will last forever, though the Chinese and Indian elites might want their day in the sun.
I don't think that an economic collapse will result in anything other than barbarism, but given that you won't discuss how complex problems might be solved in your imaginary system I don't think you care what happens so long as the current system collapses.

mm

Anarchists are in favour of education and debate so that hopefully when the current system does run it's course, whatever we build to replace it avoids the problems inherent in the current system.

Chaos and violence is only one possible outcome of a collapse of our economic system. The collapse won't happen over night, there will be time to adjust. Socialism is already in resurgence in Latin America, there will be models that we can look towards.

mountainyman

DadaKopf wrote:

What do you find particularly reprihensible about the current system? What would you change? Or is everything just fine and dandy?

The level of waste involved in Capitalism is undesirable.
The ever increasing consumption and and abandonment of goods.
The fact that raw material costs are deliberately kept low by the wealthy countries.
The impact that those low raw material costs have on the wages and standard of living of those who produce them.

MM

DadaKopf

Akrasia wrote:

Anarchists are in favour of education and debate so that hopefully when the current system does run it's course, whatever we build to replace it avoids the problems inherent in the current system.

Chaos and violence is only one possible outcome of a collapse of our economic system. The collapse won't happen over night, there will be time to adjust. Socialism is already in resurgence in Latin America, there will be models that we can look towards.

Socialism or neo-populism. We'll see. Still, if it's a genuine attempt to socialise the market again, I'm for it.

I wonder, though, whether your argument, or analysis at least, focus too much on material conditions rather than existing underlying relations of power. If you're not, then you're running the risk of pie-in-the-sky idealism. Although, I'm sure you have ideas about this.

Sand

Akrasia, in an anarchist system what would protect an individual from a charismatic oppressor? How would you protect freedom of speech? Freedom of religion? Rely on the majority to do the right thing?

Why were laws and independant judicial systems developed?

Why are communities with strong private property rights far more free than communities without them?

3. Are those who build homes on the land, also effectively "working the land" so they own it too?

yes but they can't sell it for a profit so there wouldn't be property speculation. You could trade your house for someone else's house somewhere else, but that would have to be by mutual agreement. You could not be a landlord because nobody would be prepared to pay you rent and if you are not personally using the house, you have no claim over it.

How would complex economic systems be replaced when you could not even hire specialists to build your house because everyone who worked on building your house would own it and could simply move in whenever they felt like it?

Anarchism would demand an angelic humanity. People who would never accept bribes, never act in a self interested manner but rather always for the good of all, always give 110% even if they receive no benefit. If humanity was or could be angelic, is it not true then that any political system would be perfect - even absolute tyranny would be perfectly benevolent?

And waiting for the impending collapse? Marxists have been waiting for that for over 100 years like some sad joke of a millenial cult. Any year now.

It doesnt say much for anarchism that its only attractive when compared to what will result from economic and political meltdown. If ever such a time of reckoning came, a lot of idealogical and social forces currently held in check would be let loose and I doubt anarchism would be the most appealing to the masses. People like great causes not day to day drudgery, charismatic leaders not personal responsibility, simple solutions not difficult challenges, utopias not reality. Only a few prefer liberty, the majority seek nothing more than fair masters as Sallust noted over 2000 years ago.

The entire advertising and marketing industry is built on the very idea that human behaviour is highly suggestable and can operate within a wide range of parameters if trained and influenced in the right way.

Political training and influence? My, what a crop of fine upstanding and independantly minded citizens youll train and influence to question authority. Wholl be setting the course work?

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

Akrasia, in an anarchist system what would protect an individual from a charismatic oppressor?

What protects them under a 'representative democracy'? The structure of an anarchist society means that individuals are much less able to command others to perform tasks that are against the interests of the community at large. The nature of Anarchism is that individuals participate and promote their own interests actively, and not passively request representation from someone else. There is always a risk of 'tyranny of the majority', Anarchists recognise this, But compared with capitalism where we have a tyranny of the minority or dictatorships, where we just have tyrants, anarchist forms of direct democracy offer the greatest opportunities for individuals and minority groups to protect themselves from oppression.

How would you protect freedom of speech? [/speech) well, lets turn that around? How would an anarchist society restrict freedom of speech? there would be no laws restricting freedom of speech, there would be no private media empires that only promote one world view. Anarchists have been at the forefront of promoting independent media all over the world. Everyone is the media.

Freedom of religion?

Again, how would anarchists restrict religious belief? People can believe anything they like. Unless their religion promotes violence or oppression. anarchist feminists wouldn't look kindly on fundamentalist christianity or Islam.

Rely on the majority to do the right thing?

You're confusing 'democracy' with the concept of 'majority rules'

Why were laws and independant judicial systems developed?

Laws were invented to control people, and an independent judiciary was developed to protect citizens from the state

Why are communities with strong private property rights far more free than communities without them?

you're going to have to explain yourself here.

How would complex economic systems be replaced when you could not even hire specialists to build your house because everyone who worked on building your house would own it and could simply move in whenever they felt like it?

have you ever heard of a housing cooperative?
You should look them up.

Anarchism would demand an angelic humanity. People who would never accept bribes, never act in a self interested manner but rather always for the good of all, always give 110% even if they receive no benefit. If humanity was or could be angelic, is it not true then that any political system would be perfect - even absolute tyranny would be perfectly benevolent?

you're inferring something that I never said. Nobody said an anarchist society would be perfect. It would have problems, but compared with the problems caused by Global capitalism, Anarchism is a much better option. All of the problems you mentioned are widespread in capitalist society, but you are using those problems that already exist as an argument why we could not live in an anarchist society.

And waiting for the impending collapse? Marxists have been waiting for that for over 100 years like some sad joke of a millenial cult. Any year now.

Societies economic and political systems and collapse and are rebuilt all of the time. Less than a hundred years ago, Ireland was a completely different country, Latin American countries are currently moving from right wing dictatorships towards something else and they would have never even been right wing dictatorships if it wasn't for the violent interventions of the U.S. and Russia over the last 100 years.

It doesnt say much for anarchism that its only attractive when compared to what will result from economic and political meltdown.

That's not what anyone has said, Anarchism is attractive, but it probably won't be able to survive military intervention from one of the militaristic capitalists that have been screwing with political movements around the world for centuries. Anarchism is to capitalism, what democracy is to dictatorship. Democratic movements are very difficult to organise in a totalitarian state, well, anarchist movements are operating against what amounts to a global totalitarian state.

If ever such a time of reckoning came, a lot of idealogical and social forces currently held in check would be let loose and I doubt anarchism would be the most appealing to the masses.

considering that most people don't know what anarchism is, that's a bug assumption to make. It might not be attractive to some of the people who hold all of the wealth, but to those who have nothing, it's a huge improvement (and the people with nothing outnumber the wealthy by 20 to 1)

Political training and influence? My, what a crop of fine upstanding and independantly minded citizens youll train and influence to question authority. Wholl be setting the course work?

training in the skills required to self manage. these skills are not innate, they need to be taught. just as people are not born knowing how to read or cook, they need to be taught how to take control of their own lives and represent their own interests. conversely People are not born respecting authority, that is something they are taught (and it's probably the hardest thing to get a child to do)

Akrasia

DadaKopf wrote:

Socialism or neo-populism. We'll see. Still, if it's a genuine attempt to socialise the market again, I'm for it.

I wonder, though, whether your argument, or analysis at least, focus too much on material conditions rather than existing underlying relations of power. If you're not, then you're running the risk of pie-in-the-sky idealism. Although, I'm sure you have ideas about this.

I believe that material conditions and power relationships are intertwined.

People tend to act within the parameters of the system they are living in. If we remove the institutions through which people can exercise power, then that material change will have a strong influence on power structures. and if we replace those top down institutions with a more participatory system, it will encourage people to get involved.
(one of the biggest reasons people don't get involved in politics now, is because they feel their contribution makes no difference unless they are prepared to devote ungodly amounts of time and energy to one specific task)